Southland Tales

Ever watch a movie late at night, when you're really tired, and find yourself utterly clueless what is going on in the movie because you're dozing off for several seconds every few minutes? This was my experience watching Southland Tales, except it wasn't that late, and I was wide awake every second. Yet still I kept feeling like I'd missed something.

The structure is a complete mess. It has the feel of a movie that was much longer until the studio or distributor forced some edits for a decent running time. Within the story's timeline, days seem to pass while some characters do nothing but drive from one place to another, never leaving the city...yet other characters manage to traverse citywide distances in almost no time at all, from one scene to the next. Some characters are unconscious until the plot requires them to wake up, whether it's a few minutes or several hours, while others never seem to eat or sleep or even leave their rooms. I know the movie is supposed to have an otherworldly quality to it, and the nature of our known existence may not always apply, but still...even an alternate reality has to have structural integrity - rules of its own - which is not being upheld here. It's a big ol' convoluted mess.

I am a fan of Donnie Darko, more so the director's cut, and I use that as an example of Richard Kelly's ability to set up alternate realities, with different rules from our own, and abide by them. He doesn't do that here. He's attempted something so big and so far-reaching that he can't contain it within this movie. I suppose that's why there are three graphic novels leading up to the events of the movie, but guess what - if the movie doesn't make sense on its own, it isn't a good movie. If I don't know what the movie's about after thirty-five minutes, the filmmakers have done a poor job of telling the story.

For you Southland fans out there, please don't try to tell me I wasn't paying attention, or it's a movie you have to think about, or it was just over my head - I'm a pretty smart guy, and I've seen a lot of movies. I get that it's meant to be political satire in the realm of science fiction. I get that it's a story about things that don't always make sense and therefore it's not always going to make sense. Donnie Darko did the same thing, with psychological issues instead of political issues, and that movie makes perfect sense to me. The difference is in the storytelling, and the story is not being told here as much as it is merely being referenced...as if the movie is made for people who are already fans of, and therefore familiar with, the Southland universe.

I believe it is clear to me what Richard Kelly is attempting to do - it's just not working. He's trying to make a satire, a comedy, by casting mostly comic actors and having them play their roles seriously. But the movie isn't funny. The tone is not funny, or odd, or comedic or sarcastic in any way. It's a bit full of itself, but accomplishes nothing more than making the apparently serious not so serious. The cast is diverse and interesting, including five SNL cast members, one from MADtv, and even Christopher Lambert! What purpose their characters serve in the story, however...I have no idea. I will give Seann William Scott a lot of credit, for turning in a very interesting and more dramatic performance than he usually provides, because he's typically a comic actor in a comic film, and it's nice to see that he's capable of more. Too bad the movie itself doesn't support him.

There's a voice over narration from Justin Timberlake that feels useless and tacked on, a long music video right in the middle of the movie that serves no real purpose, many sequences that go on and on and do nothing but establish mood that doesn't relate to the story in any recognizable way...no real beginning, anti-climactic ending, and two, yes TWO separate third act instances of the jesus christ pose, which is such a pretentious and cliched image to put in your movie, at least when you're so obvious about it, that all I can do is scoff at what a dumb idea it was. And they did it twice.

Hopefully this is one of those things where a writer/director makes a popular, respected movie his first time out, totally craps a big one on the second film, then gets his act together for the third. So I will be looking forward to The Box next year, though I must point out that in adapting a story by the legendary Richard Matheson, Kelly has a lot going for his third film out of the gate - less to prove, more to start with, and a better chance of being able to simply focus on making a good film instead of "doing his thing".

Southland Tales is a big stinking mess. I get it, but I don't like it. The movie isn't whole enough to be appreciated. People who like it may be fooling themselves into thinking confusing means thoughtful, that weird and different is always good and better. Not so. Just watch the director's cut of Donnie Darko again. That's what a weird movie with true depth should be like, and the more I watch it, the more I appreciate it.

Oh, and, Earth to Netflix: the film is not 1 hour 40 minutes, nor 140 minutes; it's actually longer than that. And The Rock is not is this movie. Dwayne Johnson is, but The Rock receives no credit. Get your facts straight, please.

Cult Favorites

Yes, I'm finally getting around to this. I've been busy writing and working and studying and earning A's in all my classes; that's right! And I decided it's wrong to call these classics, because none of these movies are what I'd truly term classical in any sense. But they're definitely favorites just outside the mainstream, and that gives them a certain clout - a respect, for the half-assed brilliance they exhibit. For their unique oddness, for the oddity of their uniqueness. They're different but familiar. And they're my friggin' choices, so, there's possibly some kind of theme buried within the subtext here. I tend to do that. I also tend to put things in some kind of order, so here's the chronological:

Midnight Madness
It's goofy, it's silly, it's corny, it's part of the bridge from 70's punk to 80's pop...okay not so much the latter, but come on! Co-starring Michael J. Fox as a teenager, when he actually still was one! David Naughton post-Dr. Pepper and pre-American Werewolf! Stephen Furst as a villain instead of the sap from Animal House! Eddie Deezen & Paul Reubens in the same movie!! It's been spoofed on Robot Chicken, for Leon's sake! If you were born in the 60's or 70's, check it out. It'll take you back.

A Muppet Family Christmas
Okay, so it's a t.v. special, not a movie. So what. It has two important qualities that make it a cult favorite: it's a one-shot deal that combines & crosses over previously set boundaries of fictional realms defined by its own creators, and, it's unavailable in its original form. First, Jim Henson was still alive, so the show has all the magic (and voices) that made the Muppets what they were. Second, the show has characters from different parts of the Muppet universe that had never interacted before, and I don't believe they have since, for the most part - folks from the Muppet Show & Sesame Street, all in the same place? There'd been some crossover there before, but not like this...even the Muppet Babies put in an appearance. And the Fraggles turn up! Do you have any idea how weird that is? It's freakin' awesome, okay? Fraggles rock!

It's no longer available in its original form because, I believe, they don't have the rights to some of the songs, so the current video & DVD releases are missing some scenes, and otherwise edited. Also, Disney owns Henson productions, or at least some of the distribution rights, and they're always chopping things up to suit whatever stupid crappy concept they have for it. They suck. The good news is, there are still old recordings and VHS copies of the original special, and while I'm not lucky enough to own one, I would certainly recommend tracking it down if you have the means. Or you could always buy it for me.

UHF
I'm one of the dozen or so people who actually saw this during its ludicrously brief theatrical release in the summer of 1989. And it only cost $1 - back when there were second-run theaters, this could happen! Totally worth it. It was funny then and it's funny now. It's not the most eloquent of films, and the production values are often laughable, though sometimes this is intentional...a good farcical parody (or parodic farce) is hard to find, you know? It's going to be cheesy and cheap if it's going to be good. Look at all the junk they're churning out these days - Disaster Movie, Epic Movie, Date Movie, Scary Movie 3...I think it's mainly the same group of guys (you know it's guys; women don't produce this kind of work) pooping them out, stinking up the cinematic landscape. Weird Al is a genius god next to these losers. Even Michael Richards was still talented back then - if there's an Oscar equivalent for playing a dumbass goofball, he earned it here.

Freaked
Not a very widely known film, but that's what makes it a cult favorite. If you ever wondered what happened to Alex Winter, widely recognized as Bill S Preston Esq. of Bill & Ted...well, this movie pretty much tells that story - he turned into a hideous mutated freak and moved behind the camera. It has those same qualities as UHF that make it fun - cheap and cheesy, with good comic timing. Randy Quaid as an evil madman! Keanu Reeves as an uncredited Dog-Boy! A cameo by David Bowe from UHF! Shakespeare with monsters! A movie doesn't always have to be good to be good, if you know what I mean...as long as it isn't lousy.

S.F.W.
This movie is a product of its time - I'm not sure people really get it anymore. Folks of a certain generation will recognize the discontent complacency, the desire to change one's life without making an effort...I know these are contradictory sentiments, but that's what it does. It shows how meaningless life can feel, as if all anyone could do is go along for the ride, whatever the ride is. The movie reflects this, the music reflects this, and Stephen Dorff's performance says it all. He exists, but he's not doing anything about it.

I wouldn't say anything in this movie is brilliant, exactly, but it certainly captures the essence of its own story, by making it a semi-comic satire of the world around it, and within it. Besides, it's got a young Reese Witherspoon...the "fuckin' special" version of Radiohead's first big hit 'Creep'...Jake Busey as a douchebag! You can't go wrong, if you look at it right.


I left out things like Creepshow & Killer Klowns From Outer Space because...well, I've talked about those before, and they're more widely accepted for being what they are, or more well known, or something. I just didn't want to, okay? And no promises this time regarding my next topic, or its expected date of publishment. I does what I does and we'll sees what that is. Thanks for reading!

The Mist

Okay, so I haven't written anything for a while. I've been busy. And I have seen a few movies since Michael Clayton, but not much that really warranted reviewing, and nothing I had time for. While I have not forgotten about my intended Cult Classics post, it's just going to have to wait. Because I really want to point out how much I hate The Mist.

I heard good things about it. It got decent reviews. They said it was a quality B-movie, suspenseful, creepy...I was totally up for that. I was even willing to give Frank Darabont a chance to prove he might actually be capable of becoming a quality writer/director. Yes, I am one of those people who hates The Shawshank Redemption, because it has some good qualities but is overwritten and overdirected and is possibly the most overrated movie I've ever seen; even the word "overrated" doesn't have quite enough hyperbole for me. But we're talking about The Mist, and since I made a point to put my negative opinion of Darabont aside in order to watch this movie, anyone who disagrees with me about his films in general should put their positive opinion aside and look at The Mist on its own terms. Doing that, I honestly don't know how anyone could even call it decent. It's truly awful.

There is no suspense. There are long drawn out periods in which people talk about bullshit and nothing happens; that's not suspense. Suspense is when there's a thick mist surrounding a full supermarket and nobody knows what's out there...this would be great but it doesn't last, because the first thing that really happens to anyone is when a giant tentacle grabs some idiot bag boy and drags him outside to the loading dock. Okay, so, now we know: there are monsters out there. Suspense over. This is very early in the story. Once you know that, it seems pretty clear: don't go outside. But some people don't believe there are monsters, and when those who've seen the tentacle finally get around to showing those who haven't, oh gee, it suddenly dissolves into a big puddle. How unfortunate. No wait, I mean, how fucking stupid.

That's just the first monster. Later there are cat-sized bugs, and eagle-sized bird/dragon things that eat the bugs. Then big spiders, then giant crab-thingies, and so on. Of course, these monsters are always hungry when people go outside, but never actually try to get into the supermarket. And the same monsters never come back, even after discovering a ready source of food. How convenient for the story, so it can continue introducing newer and bigger and scarier monsters without needing any motivation or plot progression to do so.

I don't even know what to say about the anti-religious aspect of the human conflict. And I'm not a big fan of religion, but if you take out the wacko religious nut character, then these people are doing absolutely nothing, and as it is all they do is talk talk talk talk talk and never act. Often they don't even react, and when they do, they do the stupidest thing possible. They notice all these big bugs landing on the window, so what do they do? Each and every person who is holding a lantern carries it over to the window to get a closer look at the bugs. Um, bugs are attracted to light, duh. One guy even says this, and so what happens after that? Some other guy flips on all their emergency floodlights they've set up around the store, after stating the floodlights are only for when something is in the store and they need these lights to see them. So once they realize oh, maybe we shouldn't have all these dozens of lights on for no reason, they still don't turn them off. They stand around, screaming, or just watching what's going on.

That's a big problem in this movie. Say there are half a dozen people in one scene, and if there are tentacles or bugs or spiders attacking one or two people, the rest of them aren't doing anything. They look on in horror or scream or something. Now I know some might defend this and call it human nature or lack of bravery or something, I mean yeah it's probably not an easy thing to do to put yourself in harm's way when there are giant spiders attacking someone you barely know, but...this is a movie. It's pretty damn boring to watch a bunch of people stand around watching something, then talk about it later for ten minutes. They need to do something! So many times in this movie, people don't run when any normal person would move his ass. They just stand there. Sometimes, they stand there screaming. Stop looking at the big spider and get the fuck out! Pacing is a big problem in the movie, because of things like this; it's nearly two hours when it could easily be twenty minutes shorter, and additionally, it never feels like the story is moving because none of the characters are moving! Literally, not moving! They stand there whenever something happens, instead of acting or reacting. This is simply bad direction.

These may seem like little things, like nitpicking, but these are the things that make bad storytelling. Characters and actions, monster or human or otherwise, need to be motivated. You don't create tension or suspense by not having a number of characters run when the audience is thinking it's time to leave...those characters have to have some kind of motivation not to run, something that outweighs their fear. Stupidity can outweigh fear, but you also have to motivate stupidity. You have to motivate everything, and you have to do it from inside the story, not out. You can't have one character accidentally knock over a bucket of lighter fluid and set himself on fire just because you want your movie to have a guy who gets burned very badly. You have to motivate the story element of the bucket being knocked over. He can't just walk into it, oops, now I'm on fire...that's fucking stupid.

All the characters are one-dimensional or less. Mostly less. The dialogue is bad. The acting is bad. The writing is bad. After the tentacles kill that one guy, everyone who witnessed it stands around talking about how they're going to tell everybody; half of them are drinking cans of beer (thank you product-placement team!) like buddies at a barbecue...why? That's easy - so the main guy who doesn't believe they saw a monster can say he doesn't believe them because they're drinking. Ooh, what a tough situation; how will they convince him now? It's fucking stupid. I'm sorry to keep repeating myself but there's no better way to put it.

I'd heard there was some controversy to the ending, in addition to some people calling it brilliant and others saying it was just wrong, and I honestly don't know what they're talking about - there is no ending. Yes, seriously. Nothing happens at the end. Call it a spoiler if you want, but, really, there's no point - five people get away in a car, then run out of gas while they're still in the mist, and the only thing they can think to do, the FIRST action they opt for, is to use their one gun and four bullets to kill themselves rather than let the monsters get them, or, say, I don't know, sit there and wait until they decide they need the bullets, or possibly even get out and walk and bring the gun with them in case they need it at some point. No, they immediately opt for one guy to shoot the other four, and now he feels bad because one of the four was his young son, and oops, suddenly the military shows up and the mist magically dissipates, oh golly, doesn't he feel like a sucker now for shooting his son in the face just a minute too soon. The only thing controversial about this is how anyone could think it was anything but totally fucking stupid.

So there is no ending, because once he kills these four people in the car, nothing happens. The military, who is supposedly responsible for causing all this in the first place, comes down the road with tanks and trucks and flamethrowers, though what they're actually doing, who the hell knows. And of course the mist is suddenly gone. Even though the mist itself had nothing to with anything, ever. The danger was the monsters, not the mist. The only point of the mist is that it hides the danger. That's where the suspense comes in. But we know almost right away that there are monsters out there. Well, if we know there are killer monsters, fuck the mist! It's the monsters that are scary! And there's no suspense. Poor, poor storytelling.

What's really scary is that Frank Darabont keeps making movies, and normally intelligent and respectable people not only let him, but actually praise him. It's insane, really, and while I'm usually content to politely and cheerfully disagree with people who have differing opinions in regards to film, I really don't know how anyone can watch this and not think it's incredibly fucking stupid. Yes, the unknown is suspenseful, and monsters can be terrifying, but these things are not played for their strengths in this awful, awful movie. The tone is all wrong, and the direction is horrible in the way these events are played out. The script's reliance on thoughtless religious zealotry is tired and simplistic and a poor excuse for revelation of character; no pun intended on that 'revelation' bit.

I would not have been surprised to find this movie less than brilliant, but I'm absolutely perplexed by the overall positive response that seems to exist out there. I mean, it's a really bad movie. Really really bad. I suppose because it isn't bad in the obvious, Battlefield Earth/Manos: The Hands Of Fate kind of way that some people still like it, but if you just look at it in terms of story and character, how the film is executed...it really is rather obvious, and I am surprised so many people think there's anything good about it. Just because a movie has quality elements doesn't mean it's a good movie. Eggs and flour and chocolate chips don't make good cookies unless you mix and bake them properly...Darabont keeps proving, time and time again, that he's a lousy baker.

For a good version of this type of story, the group-of-people-trapped-somewhere-with-unknown-scary-monsters-trying-to-get-them, check out Pitch Black. Strong performances, interesting characters, and cool monsters that don't disappear and show up whenever it suits the writing. Everyone has clear motivations they follow throughout, and that includes the creatures. Also, Vin Diesel before he was a joke! But please don't bother with the sequel.

Next time: Cult Classics! I swear I'll do it!

Michael Clayton

Last year, I only managed to get my sorry ass into a movie theater a few times. Less than a dozen, I think; can’t even remember why anymore. One of those times was for Michael Clayton. I enjoyed it, I recognized its successful qualities, especially several of the performances, but it didn’t quite resonate with me as a filmgoer. It didn’t sink in. I didn’t even review it. But the more I thought about it, the more it seemed to be a very strong and moving story, well told and admirable. I even put it in my top five of the year, despite my lack of intensity regarding its impact on me at the time. Now that it’s received seven Oscar nominations and been re-released into theaters, I had an opportunity to see it once more (thanks, Jen!) with a new perspective...and the true strength of this film has finally sunk in.

I mentioned the performances; I knew they were good the first time, but now I’m simply amazed at what these actors did with their roles. Tilda Swinton completely disappears inside Karen Crowder...her insecurity, her sense of responsibility, and guilt, and inability to feel comfortable with anything she’s doing, good or bad. I hardly know what to say about Tom Wilkinson; he’s always good, and a british actor playing an american (which he does often), as well as portraying a serious chemical imbalance, is certainly going to acquire a lot of critical praise...but he’s doing so much more than that. There is such depth to his character; his performance is a great deal more than the mechanics of mental instability. Even the supporting actors without Oscar nominations - Michael O’Keefe, Merritt Wever, the young Austin Williams as Michael’s son Henry, the always wonderful Sydney Pollack...they make a strong impression, and without them the movie wouldn’t carry the weight it needs to.

And of course, there’s the man himself, George Clooney...he gets away with playing a lot of characters using his natural (and naturally overflowing) charm and charisma, like the Ocean’s Eleven series...none of that is in evidence here. I’m pretty sure he doesn’t smile once throughout the entire movie. Everything Michael Clayton is dealing with, all the trouble resting on his shoulders, is clearly evident in every expression, every movement Clooney makes. The film ends with an extraordinarily long take as he sits in the back of a moving taxi, his very soul on display; he seems to be reliving every heart-crushing moment of the story we’ve just seen play out. It’s the kind of thing you never see an actor do; merely sit there and be, in character. This is not George Clooney the heartthrob, the gotta-love-him movie star; this is Clooney the actor...and I’m truly enthralled by what he does in the role.

So what is there to say about the screenwriting, the direction? There’s a plethora of plot events and story points, but I wouldn’t call it intricate. It’s the kind of story that could easily end up convoluted and useless, but Tony Gilroy is better than that. He brings you into it, tells you everything you need to know...there are no secrets, no twists, no sudden surprises that bring everything to new light. It’s all right there, and you’re with him every step of the way. There is tension even when you’ve already seen what happens next, and I’m still trying to figure out how he did that. It’s simply a great way to tell a story, and I admire this experienced screenwriter for taking on his own script as a first-time director. That shows a lot of passion for the film, a true understanding of what he wants to get across and how to do so. It’s definitely something any filmmaker would aspire to.

I’m glad I was able to see this a second time, and in the theater, and with someone who was certain to take notice of the great performances. When seeing a good film a second time, it’s nice to share it with someone who’ll have a strong and unique perspective. That way, you know you’re not saying to yourself, "Gee, this really is good; why didn’t it sink in before?" Instead, you learn to appreciate what you knew was there but didn’t quite feel, and you have someone who can impart a more comprehensive first-time experience. It’s never as simple as just seeing a movie; not for me, anyway. If it were, I couldn’t possibly be writing this.

Go see Michael Clayton, before the Oscars! And tell me what you think!

Great Bad Movies

So it sucks, but you love it anyway. You watch it, you enjoy it, you know how stupid it is but you don’t care. People laugh when they see the DVD in your home. All the blood rushes to your face when you defend it, because you’re acutely aware of how stupid you sound with every word, but you don’t care because you simply can’t get enough of that movie, awful though it may be. These are mine.

Cliffhanger
Occasionally I can accept an excess of spectacle at the expense of substance, as long as the spectacle is actually good, and I can absorb the minimal substance without taking it seriously, even if the characters do. Precisely the case here. Who cares about the plot, the drama, the backstory...this is a visual movie, and the images don’t disappoint. Neither does the sound; I am always entertained by one particular moment as a bad guy is blown away, with his own shotgun, as he’s being tossed off the side of a very tall mountain, and the moment of his blood spattering the clean white snow is accentuated in crisp, clear sound. Ya gotta love stupid action-movie bullshit like that.

Demolition Man
‘93 was a hell of a year for Stallone, by golly. Cliffhanger in the early summer, Demolition Man in the fall. This is by far my favorite sci-fi action movie that doesn’t take itself seriously...let the world have its 2001 Space Odysseys and Blade Runners (both of which I also like, btw); I’m certain to give more viewings over a lifetime to a movie that successfully makes fun of the very genre it perpetuates. This movie is funny, cool, and just silly enough to get away with its massive ridiculousness. Plus, Sandra Bullock kicking ass pre-superstardom, and Denis Leary verbally abusing people! Who can argue with that?

Dante’s Peak
It’s so dumb. It really is. But it’s that perfect balance of spectacle over substance that actually works, if you don’t take it seriously. Just go into it expecting to laugh at the parts played with the most melodrama, and to say "That sucks for them!" about every ten minutes...you’ll be fine. The effects are good, anyway; they still hold up.

Evolution
I don’t care what anybody says; this movie is funny. And a good thing, too; it was originally written as dramatic sci-fi action, with no jokes whatsoever. Imagine that! It would have sucked alien cytoplasm with that tone. Playing it goofy means everyone is in on the same joke - that this movie is beyond ridiculous. So just go with it, baby!

Identity
So its big mystery is easy to figure out, and that’s certainly not how SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER a multiple personality disorder works, and the actions of pretty much everyone, real or imagined, are generally quite stupid...so what, man; the actors chew up the scenery and spit it at each other. That’s fuckin’ fun to watch. Great lighting, too.

Paycheck
I suppose I could put any one of John Woo’s american films on this list, but honestly, I don’t like the rest of them quite enough to call them bad but good. They’re neither bad nor good, but moderately enjoyable; I like them all to some degree. But this one stands out because it seemed to get more lousy press, more bad word-of-mouth, more public vituperation than any of the others. Probably due to Ben Affleck. But whatever; it’s a fun movie in a long line of Philip K. Dick adaptations, many of which are less-than-brilliant. It’s a turn-off-your-brain-and-just-let-the-images-and-sound-impact-you movie. So do that, and you’re all right.

The Running Man
Where would this list be without the crap of Arnold’s "acting" career? I could have picked so many...Total Recall comes to mind, after that Philip K. Dick comment, but this is probably the worst movie of Arnold’s that’s actually any good. It’s better than Commando, but more ridiculous than...well, Total Recall. Its very stupidity is what makes it enjoyable. And that’s not an easy trick to pull off, so...ya gotta respect it.

Soldier
This movie is so full of cliches and plot holes, I don’t know what it is that kept me from rolling my eyes and wishing it were over when I first saw it, but...I didn’t. It just looks good, I guess; it’s simply a treat to focus your eyes on. If you can disconnect the logic center of your brain (which I don’t often do, but I’m capable), you might be able to appreciate the pure cinematic gut-punch that is this movie. Don’t think about it, just watch it. That pretty much goes for every movie on this list. Tell your inner film student / movie critic / cineaste to shut the fuck up, sit the fuck back, and enjoy it. If I can do it, anyone reading this can do the same.

Next time: cult classics!

Prozac Nation

I remember hearing about this movie while it was in production, back in 2000, and learning the next year that it would not be released...not even on DVD. Who knows why these things happen? Typically there are legal issues, as I believe was mainly the case here, but more often, the movie is hideous, and the studio cuts their losses before distribution, to avoid the embarrassment and expense of failure. Once this movie was eventually released, a couple years ago, I don’t think it was quite a failure, but it didn’t make much of a splash, either. And that’s too bad, because it’s quite solid drama, and it deserves attention.

Reportedly, Elizabeth Wurtzel hates the movie. She thinks it’s horrible. I can’t say I blame her; it’s her book, her life, her psyche being opened up and put on display...but it couldn’t possibly come across the same way as her own personal truth, which I assume is in the book. Is the movie going to be accurate in regards to her feelings, her emotional pendulum, her turmoils and triumphs? Of course not. It wouldn’t play. If she stays tied to what she feels, she’s going to hate the movie. It’s a different animal, and will do what it must to grow strong and survive. This is why I’ll probably never read the book...because the movie may not be the same as what she went through, but it reveals the truth of her experience. And that’s what I’m really interested in.

I was thoroughly amazed by Christina Ricci's performance in Black Snake Moan last year...not because I didn’t know she was that good an actress; I did. She was simply that amazing to watch. So it’s fascinating to see her with the same intensity here as Lizzie, the same immersion in her character, considering this movie was filmed more than five years earlier, when she was barely twenty years old. Every moment of pain, her constant emotional anguish, the occasional bout of elation or clarity...it comes pouring out of her, except when it needs to drip, slowly. I can always feel what the character is going through.

Now that might have something to do with my own experience, depression, insomnia, mania, awareness, self-analysis...everything the character finds herself doing throughout the story, except the drug use. Maybe that’s why I like the movie. I always understand what she’s dealing with, why she doesn’t want to deal with it, and why she does want to. People who don’t understand depression, especially the idea that those afflicted often can’t do anything about it, will get a very clear picture after seeing this film. I think that’s what Elizabeth Wurtzel may be missing in regards to the movie: it isn’t about being right, or wholly true; it’s about making the impression come off the screen. It’s about getting a viewer to understand the feeling from the inside. I believe the movie succeeds in this, and I think more people should see it.

I also think more people should consider what an anti-depressant is really for, and what it does, before opting to take one every day for years and years. The movie isn’t even about Prozac, or pharmaceuticals of any kind; it’s about a girl with emotional problems and the family and friends in her life. The movie doesn’t make any statements or take any positions on any issues. It’s a character study, and a good one. Christina Ricci is definitely the center of attention here, but takes nothing away from the performances of all the other actors, who are equally admirable. I always enjoy drama when it comes from somewhere real, which is all too rare, but it’s that much better when I find something beautiful and true. I’ve found that here, and I’m pleased to share it.

Bad, Bad, & Worse

I am often more disappointed in lousy movies when I want to see them, when I think they might actually be good. Expectation does play a part. With the best movies, there are some I left out because they were as good (or even better) than I expected, and I was not alone in that. Ratatouille, for example. I loved it, but I thought I would, so it didn't make the list. Still a great movie.

But the bad ones, even if I expect not to like them, are often so terrible that they exceed my expectations in their badness, just as the good ones can exceed my expectations of their goodness. And that is why the bad list has a top five (or bottom five, depending on how you look at it) and a big list of runners-up. Despite my recent reviews for Haute Tension and No Country For Old Men, they didn't make this list because they're not quite bad enough. The reviews are negative, but High Tension is well-made, despite being such crap, and No Country is really quite excellent until 3/4 of the way into it, which I reiterate is not a bad story, but a bad way of telling it. Go read the review if you want to know why.

Also, I again mention the means by which I saw the movie. Keep in mind, on this list, many of those I borrowed from the library were checked out because they were there, and they were free; I would otherwise not have bothered to see it, thinking it was probably not a good movie. Same deal with some of the cable viewings. Others I'd heard good things about and was in utter shock how seriously awful the movie turned out to be. A prime example...


Babel (rented, full price)
I made an effort last year to see each of the Best Picture nominees before the Oscars, and as many of the other major nominees as well. Some, like Showgirls, I refuse to ever see, because it looks SO awful I know I can't sit through it. It amazes me how anyone can look at a performance in that movie and award it. But, that's a rant for another post. This is about Babel - A highly respected movie that I picked up at the video store on Saturday, one night before the Oscars. I couldn't believe how terrible it is. Most of the various characters do the stupidest possible thing to get into these situations, then they do even stupider things to make them worse. It was horrible. I can't remember ever seeing a movie so contrived that wasn't a dumbass low-budget horror movie one might see spoofed by MST3K or Svengoolie. And when the characters aren't doing the dumbest thing they could possibly do, they're caught up in five-minute music video-type segments, that seem to go on much, much longer, and do nothing to advance the story...what story there is, anyway. I feel sorry for the decent actors in this mess, made to look stupid by the pathetic excuse for storytelling. They deserve better.

I admit that I should have known better; remember the BMW films of a few years ago? The worst one of the eight was as equally stupid and contrived and horrible as Babel. What I didn't realize until the Oscars were all over is that Babel and this BMW film Powder Keg were written & directed by the same two guys. So I looked up the other films they've made together, now no longer surprised to discover I'd heard good things about those too, and cleared them from my must-see list. Good riddance.

Little Children (rented, full price)
I'd seen In The Bedroom about a month before the Oscars, simply because I wanted to see Todd Field's first movie before I saw his second, and the first one had been up for a few Oscars in its time, much like the second one was this past year. In The Bedroom will show up further down this list, but I will also say that it was not as bad as Little Children, which again, I wanted to see before the Oscars. I love Kate Winslet, and she was very good in her portrayal of this character's emotions...too bad the character's actions were so stupid, as were those of pretty much everyone else. There was no reason for anyone in this movie to do anything that they did, say anything that they said, or feel what they were supposedly feeling. Bad, bad writing. No motivation. Dumb, dumb, dumb. I hate when movies like this are generally respected, because they're so awful, they're just so stupid...nobody acts like that, nobody thinks like that! Suspension of disbelief is for larger-than-life stories, not introspective dramas. There's a ridiculous voice over, and a whole scene devoted to the outcome of a football game played by about ten people. Three married women see their married friend suddenly kiss a married man they just met and they run away like they're in immediate physical danger. It's all just so stupid, I can hardly believe it.

The Fountain (rented, with coupon)
No big Oscar nominations that I recall, but still highly touted. And I like Darren Aronofsky's first two movies. Why he turned out pretentious garbage his third time around, who knows? And who cares. Even if the movie made perfect sense, it's still pointless. And I'm pretty sure I get it; it's not complete nonsense. But it's just stupid...except for the music, which is really good but not nearly enough to save the story from its own stupidity.

Here's an example - the modern character, Izzi, has some kind of brain tumor that affects her nervous system in such a way that she can't feel even extreme changes in temperature. That's not the ridiculous part; that's 100% medically feasible...the ridiculous part is that Aronofsky demonstrates this character trait to us by writing a scene in which her husband comes home to find her sitting on the snow-covered roof without a coat, and her feet bare. Hello?!? She may have lost sensation in her nerve endings, but she's not totally stupid, right? She does know that snow is cold, doesn't she? What really makes this lousy writing is a follow-up scene in the tub that demonstrates the same inability to feel extremes in temperature...except this second scene is actually touching and poignant and makes its point in a very natural way. If you take out the scene with the bare feet in the snow, this tub scene works great. But he had to do it twice. A big rule of screenwriting is: never say twice what you can get across saying once. He should know better.

Brick (library)
This is one I managed to find in the library that was actually on my must-see list. I'd heard so many great things about it, nabbing it for free was quite thrilling. That was the last thrill I had in relation to the film. The story is so stupid. Nothing these kids do makes any sense. Nothing these kids SAY makes any sense; I could barely understand a word. I had to turn on the subtitles. The language, with its made-up slang and pseudo-noir tones, was absolutely clear to me once I knew what words they were actually saying. But the constant mumbling and garbled tones and fast-speak is just lousy filmmaking. And as for setting a story in a modern high school but playing it as film noir...nothing but a gimmick. And it wears off real fast. The movie has no style, no flair, no reason for being. Skip it.

Wedding Crashers (rented, with coupon)
It made a lot of money; everyone said it was funny...what a sad group of moviegoers we have when this is what they call funny. Putting people in ridiculous situations and making them act silly is not comedy. Comedy is creating interesting characters who find themselves in situations of conflict and watching what they do, in character, to resolve it or get out of it. And the two main characters in this movie are such misogynist assholes in the beginning that there really is no way to overcome it. It's too extreme, because in movies these days, extremism is substituted for actual characters and actual comedy. All of the characters are extremes of one-dimensionality. Pick a personality trait, blow it up, give it to someone. It's pathetic. Some people will laugh at anything.



I believe those are the worst five. Here are some others that truly suck.

Must Love Dogs (library)
I didn't think it'd be super good, but I hardly expected it to be truly awful. Watching this movie is like watching a dog with no legs swim upstream...it tries so hard, but it's got nothing to work with.

Happy Feet (cable)
Yes, I already bitched this movie out in a previous blog, but it's so, so horrendous, I had to mention it here. I found out after writing my review that this Oscar-winning Best Animated Feature used motion capture for the dancing. Sounds like a bullshit shortcut to me; why does that not disqualify it? Who cares, really; the movie is so boring and stupid. A friend of mine said even her three-year-old could not tolerate it. I love that kid.

Moulin Rouge (library)
So many people are so in love with this movie; how many times were they dropped on their heads as infants? It's just a mess. Why is it cut so fast even in non-active scenes? Why are they using known music & lyrics for songs and dialogue the characters are supposedly making up on the spot? That's damn close to plagiarism, not to mention just plain stupid, and not at all entertaining. Happy Feet did the same thing...not a pattern to emulate, if you ask me.

My Best Friend’s Wedding (library)
A friend of mine told me this is her favorite movie...she's still my friend, but, ouch...I have to question her sanity. People do not behave like these characters. And the plot was so utterly predictable. Not a good sign, when your characters are totally unrealistic yet their actions are completely predictable. That is not good writing. And when such talented and charismatic performers like Julia Roberts and Cameron Diaz do nothing but annoy the crap out of me...that's lousy direction. Toss this one into the fire.

American Dreamz (library)
I thought it would be stupid but entertaining...I was half right. It has a few good ideas, but the whole thing is very badly executed, and occasionally offensive. Nice going.

Bus Stop (library)
I thought this was supposed to be a classic! I can't help but love Marilyn Monroe, but the script is so awful, the characters so badly drawn, and the scenes so incredibly long...this story should never have left the stage.

In The Bedroom (coupon)
Same problems as Little Children, only not as bad. Unbelievable characters, lack of motivation, good performances. A conflict that nobody tries to resolve is not really a dramatic conflict; it's a device of the writers to keep their characters in jeopardy. Try again, please.

Catch and Release (paid)
Terrific screenwriter Susannah Grant becomes a director here, and forgets to work on the script until it's actually good. Quality performances can't save this mess.

The Black Dahlia (coupon)
Brian DePalma is one of those long-time directors who is generally considered an auteur, but only seems capable of doing half the job. He's great with camerawork and atmosphere, but is consistently unable to tell a decent story. Considering it's based on real events that remain unsolved, there's very little mystery in this predictable plot, less than half of which has anything to do with actual history. And the rest of movie, in following the lives of its fictional characters outside the pursuit of information related to the title character, is rather unfocused. A major disappointment.

Spider-Man 3 (coupon)
Sam Raimi used to be a real filmmaker, but the Spider-Man movies have half-assed screenplays, lousy acting, and over-direction. Three strikes; he's out. He should wait in the locker room with Bryan Singer until they're ready to do something good again.

My Super Ex-Girlfriend (cable)
I figured Ivan Reitman would be able to make this movie at least somewhat decent, but I was wrong. It isn't funny, or interesting to watch; not even to watch it fail. But it was expensive!

Borat (cable)
The jokes go on too long, and the bit isn't funny after the second time he acts like an ass in front of people who don't realize it's an act. The character is meant to be annoying so anyone who's in on the joke will find it funny, but it isn't funny; he's just annoying. I only laughed at the throwaway jokes, like hearing the pet bear ran away and seeing her head in the fridge. Now that's funny...because they did it in a wide shot, not a close-up. More gags like that and I'm closer to being on board.

Eragon (cable)
I knew it'd be kinda lame, but I overestimated the ability of anyone involved in its production to judge a story. I don't know how they can show themselves in public. It's so bad, it's practically a parody. If they played the Naked Gun theme over a couple action scenes, maybe it'd work better.

Miami Vice (cable)
Michael Mann is like DePalma in that he's a strong filmmaker in some areas (mood, design, research for his actors & department heads) and incredibly weak in others (geography of a scene, story development). There's no emotion here, like it's not even about anything. I gave this a chance because I like Collateral...my mistake.

Bats (Netflix)
This is one of those movies I've always wanted to see just to know how bad it is. And wow, does it suck. It's so laughable, it was totally worth it.

I expect to have less free time this year, and I'll be without HBO pretty soon, as they're going to want to charge me for it, so hopefully I'll see fewer crappy movies overall. It'd be a welcome change.